Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I think you mis-understand lionking - or pretend to? His position is not elitist. He is saying the average tax payer should not have to foot the bill, for the those who wish to send their kids to private schools. I agree 100%.

That is saying that only the wealthy should have access to private schools and that is elitist.

I don't see wny the average tax payer should not also have access to private schools. After all, they also pay taxes for education.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

And left the question about whether it is better or worse than shoveling money to Catholic schools unanswered.

Yeah ... and?

What difference does that make?

The issue of the Australian government shoveling money to Catholic schools is one best left to Australians, who are already doing that in this thread.

We don't do that in the U.S., or at least we hadn't, until school vouchers came along. Then that all changed. (Much to the dismay of the fundamentalist Baptists et al., I should point out, who had been gung-ho in favor of school vouchers but hadn't quite thought out the potential unintended consequences. Like the fact that they were outnumbered by the Catholics already going to private schools who would be equally eligible for vouchers.)

When you recommended the use of school vouchers as "the democratic alternative" I felt I might point out the experiences of somewhere that policy has been put into practice. I can speak knowledgeably about that.

There was no particular need for me to add to the discussion of Australian government policy already in place.

School vouchers are a back-door strategy to get government money for religious schools.

The way you guys are already doing it for Catholic schools might be better, if the money isn't deducted from from local school districts.

But I am against government support of religious schools in all cases, so "better" is a term I use advisedly in this case.

Quote:

No, you are just practising your projection techniques.

Someone is.

__________________"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

When you recommended the use of school vouchers as "the democratic alternative" I felt I might point out the experiences of somewhere that policy has been put into practice. I can speak knowledgeably about that.

Obviously not.

Even though I specifically asked you about direct funding of private schools in post #131 you insisted on pretending that the question was vouchers or no funding whatsoever.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Oh my goodness. You think an average taxpayer, even with a stupid voucher system, could afford a private school? Maybe a very basic Catholic school (but probably not). Certainly not others.

If you have any figures on how government funding affects affordability of private education then I would be interested in seeing them.

In the mean time I am not interested in "You think"s.

Originally Posted by lionking

I pay taxes for roads for everyone. I demand a road voucher just for my own use. Bugger the needs of others.

Already discussed. There may be a case for governments subsidizing private roads - especially if you are required to provide some level of public access. If you would rather that the government picked and chose which mates they subsidized then that is your prerogative.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

That is saying that only the wealthy should have access to private schools and that is elitist.

I don't see wny the average tax payer should not also have access to private schools. After all, they also pay taxes for education.

Is it elitist that only the wealthy have access to BMWs and Lamborghinis? Is it elitist that only the wealthy have access to private yachts? Is it elitist that only the wealthy can have access to truffles and caviar?

Private schools are just luxury education. If rich people want to pay for luxuries, then they should be able to.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

According to the OECD, Australia now spends more public money on private schools than any other advanced economy and that was before Prime Minister Scott Morrison's extraordinary announcement yesterday that a further $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money is to be thrown at fee-charging schools.

Is it elitist that only the wealthy have access to BMWs and Lamborghinis? Is it elitist that only the wealthy have access to private yachts? Is it elitist that only the wealthy can have access to truffles and caviar?

Actually it is. However, there is no social nor economic need to make BMWs, Lamborghinis, private yachts, truffles or caviar available to the masses.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Private schools are just luxury education. If rich people want to pay for luxuries, then they should be able to.

They are not just a luxury. The right school could potentially make a difference in the career that a person ends up with. To say that only the wealthy should have access to high end careers and that the poor should be locked in to a low income life style is not just elitism, it is class hatred.

I might also add that every student who is educated privately is a student that doesn't need to be educated publicly. Under a voucher system it should end up a wash for the government (but not when the government is on a vote buying exercise from private schools).

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Actually it is. However, there is no social nor economic need to make BMWs, Lamborghinis, private yachts, truffles or caviar available to the masses.

Ah, what a lovely fictional world you are portraying there. As long as there are rich people there will be luxury goods. The rich should not expect the government to subsidise their luxuries.

Originally Posted by psionl0

They are not just a luxury. The right school could potentially make a difference in the career that a person ends up with. To say that only the wealthy should have access to high end careers and that the poor should be locked in to a low income life style is not just elitism, it is class hatred.

Elitism is employers basing their recruitment decisions on which school someone went to, rather than on their education. Someone who has been well-educated in a public school should have equal access to employment. That's not the schools' fault, it's the employers'.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

Actually it is. However, there is no social nor economic need to make BMWs, Lamborghinis, private yachts, truffles or caviar available to the masses.

Ah, what a lovely fictional world you are portraying there. As long as there are rich people there will be luxury goods. The rich should not expect the government to subsidise their luxuries.

So what are you disagreeing about here. Do you think that what you quoted is saying something else?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Elitism is employers basing their recruitment decisions on which school someone went to, rather than on their education. Someone who has been well-educated in a public school should have equal access to employment. That's not the schools' fault, it's the employers'.

So you would rather play the blame game than do something that might help - even if it costs the government nothing.

Nice.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

So what are you disagreeing about here. Do you think that what you quoted is saying something else?

The quote illustrates a fictional world where luxury goods don't exist. We don't live in that world. The rich will always be willing to pay a premium for luxuries, and manufacturers and suppliers will always be willing to provide them. That doesn't mean that the government should subsidise them. Let them pay for their luxuries themselves.

Originally Posted by psionl0

So you would rather play the blame game than do something that might help - even if it costs the government nothing.

Nice.

Don't be ridiculous. It has already cost the government $4.5 billion. And by "cost the government" I actually mean "cost the taxpayer" because make no mistake - you and I are paying for this massive subsidy to luxury education, not the rich people.

And you ******* bet I'll be doing something about it - I'll be voting these bastards out at the next election.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

Private schools are just luxury education. If rich people want to pay for luxuries, then they should be able to.

They are not just a luxury. The right school could potentially make a difference in the career that a person ends up with. To say that only the wealthy should have access to high end careers and that the poor should be locked in to a low income life style is not just elitism, it is class hatred.

Perhaps the solution should be improving the status of the public schools, rather than resigning them to being places where students are 'locked into a low income lifestyle".

Quote:

I might also add that every student who is educated privately is a student that doesn't need to be educated publicly. Under a voucher system it should end up a wash for the government (but not when the government is on a vote buying exercise from private schools).

As I have already pointed out (and as you have so studiously avoided) the facts of school voucher systems, as demonstrated by locales where they have actually been put in place as opposed to your Utopian vision of them, is to reduce the amount of money available to the public schools, and more importantly the per-student investments made in them.

That is the reality of the situation, although possibly not what you would like to believe it would be.

__________________"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

I don't know which post you were reading but it certainly isn't the one you quoted. Show me the post that says "luxury goods don't exist".

Right, right. Of course, technically all you said was that there was "no social or economic need" for luxury goods. Which is, I suppose, in a particularly narrow and literal sense not the same thing as saying that they don't exist. So I guess you get the point for this one. Good job.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

Perhaps the solution should be improving the status of the public schools, rather than resigning them to being places where students are 'locked into a low income lifestyle".

Do you think that will ever happen?

Even if politicians were prepared to spend additional money on "effective" programs, disruptive students are still a serious problem for which no real answers are forthcoming.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

As I have already pointed out (and as you have so studiously avoided) the facts of school voucher systems, as demonstrated by locales where they have actually been put in place as opposed to your Utopian vision of them, is to reduce the amount of money available to the public schools, and more importantly the per-student investments made in them.

You are coming from a position where government subsidies are introduced into private education for the first time. That is not the situation in Australia.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

I can only go on what you actually posted and (in spite of your later clarification) not what you intended your post to be interpreted as.

I hope that subsequently I have clarified to such an extent that I leave you in no doubt as to my position.

Originally Posted by psionl0

I gave an honest answer. I don't see private education and luxury goods as being in the same category.

Why not? Apart from institutional bias in corporate recruiting policies, which I've already addressed, and given that with sufficient funding a quality education is just as possible in a public school as in a private school (and likely without a religious bias), what is the substantial difference between a private school and a Lamborghini? They're both just prestige brands.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

...... given that with sufficient funding a quality education is just as possible in a public school as in a private school ......

My experience is that this will never happen.

Given a reasonably compliant class, even a mediocre teacher can make a difference. But I have been a teacher and I know that even one disruptive student can demolish a teaching plan. Private schools can at least exclude students who don't want to learn. Public schools don't have that option.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Even if politicians were prepared to spend additional money on "effective" programs, disruptive students are still a serious problem for which no real answers are forthcoming.

You are coming from a position where government subsidies are introduced into private education for the first time. That is not the situation in Australia.

Arguing from ignorance yet again.

Victorian (I won’t speak on other state systems) secondary schools have been improving markedly in recent years, indeed decades. Have a look at the property values in high school zones like McKinnon, Balwyn, Mt Waverley and so on. These state schools are achieving similar results to private schools without the fees (or vouchers) and parents are scrambling to get their children into them.

And where is your evidence that disruptive students in state schools is worse than private schools? Apart from “common sense” of course.

__________________A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

In your experience this will never happen? Have you experienced the future? Or are you merely extrapolating from the past - and your own personal past at that - into the future?

Originally Posted by psionl0

Given a reasonably compliant class, even a mediocre teacher can make a difference. But I have been a teacher and I know that even one disruptive student can demolish a teaching plan. Private schools can at least exclude students who don't want to learn. Public schools don't have that option.

Ah, so it's disruptive students that are the problem. Now we're getting to the root of the bias. Yeah, in private schools they can just kick out the undesirables rather than expend any effort to actually help them. That's a great precedent to set.

__________________Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe

Have a look at the property values in high school zones like McKinnon, Balwyn, Mt Waverley and so on. These state schools are achieving similar results to private schools without the fees (or vouchers) and parents are scrambling to get their children into them.

You are proving my point. We have similar catchment areas (like Rossmoyne) where property prices are stratospheric simply because of the school. Similarly, Melbourne undoubtedly has districts where teachers literally fear for their lives.

Of course, parents living in Warnbro can't choose to send their children to Rossmoyne but they may be able to sent their children to a better private school if it is made more affordable.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Ah, so it's disruptive students that are the problem. Now we're getting to the root of the bias. Yeah, in private schools they can just kick out the undesirables rather than expend any effort to actually help them. That's a great precedent to set.

Exactly. Bad students should be isolated and sent to special schools that have the expertise to deal with them. Unfortunately that costs money and it is easier to let the rest of the students to suffer instead.

__________________"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Even if politicians were prepared to spend additional money on "effective" programs, disruptive students are still a serious problem for which no real answers are forthcoming.

And as I have shown you, a voucher program is only likely to exacerbate that very problem, as the best students are cherry-picked away from the public schools, and the disruptive ones who aren't allowed into the new private schools only grow in proportion.

Quote:

You are coming from a position where government subsidies are introduced into private education for the first time. That is not the situation in Australia.

What causes you to think that that will make any difference? Ozian exceptionalism?

__________________"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.